• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Memories and Burden of proof

passin thru

Well-known member
Oh how some forget. The burden of proof was on Saddam, not the United States. George Bush did not have the burden of proving that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam Hussein had the burden of proving he didn't have them. Saddam failed to meet the burden of proof .. and paid the price. It was all in accordance with international law, not that this will make any difference with Democrats.



WMDs: Don't Change the Ground Rules
The United States did not have the burden of proving Saddam Hussein was still manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction to justify attacking Iraq.
Jun 4, 2003
by David Limbaugh

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A Remember: The United States did not have the burden of proving Saddam Hussein was still manufacturing and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction to justify attacking Iraq. There is no reason the ground rules should suddenly change now that the war is over.

We don't have the burden of finding WMDs now -- not because hindsight vindicates our action as a humane liberation of the Iraqi people, which it was -- but because we never had the burden in the first place.

Don't you recall U.N. Resolution 1441? It was not a unilateral edict of the United States but a unanimous corporate statement of the 15-member Security Council. It was passed Nov. 8, 2002, not at some distant point in the past. What did that multilateral resolution provide?

It affirmed the world's absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. It declared that Iraq had repeatedly breached its obligations under U.N. Resolution 687 of 1991 by failing to disclose fully and accurately its WMD and long-range missile programs. It stated that Iraq had repeatedly obstructed U.N. inspections and finally terminated them altogether.

It gave Iraq a final chance to comply with its treaty obligation to disarm, but warned that Iraq would be considered in further material breach and face serious consequences if it made false statements or omissions in its required declaration as to disarmament.

What did all that mean in English? Simply that Iraq would either show the good guys where they were hiding the weapons or produce a comprehensive and credible paper trail proving it had disposed of them.

But on Dec. 8, Saddam produced a bogus 12,000-page document full of lies and disinformation. Right then and there Saddam sealed his own fate. For though some on the Security Council had lost their resolve -- or were never sincere in the first place -- George Bush was dead serious that he wasn't going to permit any further criminality from this terrorist-enabling tyrant.

While we permitted the post-Clinton era doves to characterize our military enforcement of Resolution 1441 as an act of preemption, technically, it was not -- not if we care anything about the words we put on paper following a war.

The gist of it is that Saddam Hussein was on probation following Gulf War I. For 12 years he repeatedly violated his conditions of probation with virtual impunity. Sure, he absorbed a few cruise missile volleys, but their limited scope did more to strengthen his defiance than deter it. He knew Clinton wasn't serious. He surely thought after 12 years of this fecklessness that George W. Bush wasn't going to be either.

Though the U.N. ultimately abdicated its duties as Saddam's probation officer, the United States and the coalition did not. We took it upon ourselves to revoke his probation. Not because we had definitive proof that he still had WMDs -- though we sincerely believed and still believe he did (we've already found the two mobile weapons labs) -- but because he failed to satisfy his conditions of probation showing us the banned goods or proof he had disposed of them.

He had more than a dozen chances. And sane people are supposed to believe he didn't have the weapons when all he would have had to do to remain in power and riches was to walk us through the process whereby he destroyed them?

The only way Saddam didn't still have the weapons, which we know he earlier had and used to slaughter his own people, is if he destroyed them. So what Bush's perennial war detractors are necessarily saying is that he made the great sacrifice (in his mind) and went to all the trouble of disposing of the WMDs, yet refused to benefit from it? That would be like a convicted bank robber, after being promised no jail time if he returned the stolen money, burning the cash and losing both the loot and his liberty. Right -- it's unthinkable.

I don't expect Bush's detractors -- whose goal is to discredit him -- to be logical or intellectually honest. But I do expect others to analyze this clearly. We are not required to find these weapons. We know Saddam had them, or he wouldn't have repeatedly obstructed the inspectors, filed a flagrantly false declaration or permitted himself to be ousted from power. He gambled against the wrong guy. And that guy, President Bush, did the right thing, and the Iraqi people are better off, and America is a safer place because of it.


David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com. He is also the author of Persecution and Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/davidlimbaugh/2003/06/04/170172.html
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Oh what a day of spin on Ranchers Political Page! I didn't realize how bad things were getting for the Bush Groupies until I came here today and saw post after post of excuses, spins and maybe outright lies. This one, especially, is bad. Saddam was the President of a soverign country. He had to prove nothing to the United States. We had no right to attack his country and kill 50,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, men, women and children. The UN had the right to enforce their rules, but the US told UN weapons inspectors to get out so we could invade. Why? I think it's because Bush didn't want the world to know there were no WMDs, because he wanted this war.
 

rjk

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
Oh what a day of spin on Ranchers Political Page! I didn't realize how bad things were getting for the Bush Groupies until I came here today and saw post after post of excuses, spins and maybe outright lies. This one, especially, is bad. Saddam was the President of a soverign country. He had to prove nothing to the United States. We had no right to attack his country and kill 50,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, men, women and children. The UN had the right to enforce their rules, but the US told UN weapons inspectors to get out so we could invade. Why? I think it's because Bush didn't want the world to know there were no WMDs, because he wanted this war.
What about a higher moral calling to remove a dictator that was a tyrant to his own and neighboring people? Not to mention a potential world threat? Fight them over there or over here.
 

Mike

Well-known member
He had to prove nothing to the United States.

THE HELL HE DIDN'T

After the Kuwait fiasco we had an agreement with the IRAQ government stipulating what they COULD and COULD NOT do.

Those stipulations WERE NOT kept by the Iraqi clones. Hell, they even ran the UN weapon inspectorsOUT of IRAQ. :p :p :p
 

rjk

Well-known member
We cannot afford to have the philosophy of waiting until a "Saddam-type" makes a blatant first move directly against the U.S. It could well be too late by then. When dealing with someone of this caliber, a pre-emptive attitude is safest.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I would have to agree with Mike on this one. It wasn't preemptive. It was too many years after the fact.

That still does not mean I allow pres. bush to get by with the things he has tried to get away with. I believe in a strong leadership but there must be accountablity and checks and balances. Bush seems to think all that can be waved. I don't go for it.

If you are a republican and believe this president shouldn't have checks and balances, what are you going to be when a democrat gets in? A hypocrite?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Dis, would you please, PLEASE quit standing up for Saddam?

In your obsession to tear down President Bush, you are almost
putting Saddam on a pedastal. It's maddening, what you are doing.
You have gone way beyond informing and information. You are sick.

You need to be tried in a court as a traitor to the US.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
rjk said:
What about a higher moral calling to remove a dictator that was a tyrant to his own and neighboring people? Not to mention a potential world threat? Fight them over there or over here.

How about asking the American people if they wanted to unseat a dictator? Bush didn't base his call for invading Iraq on Saddam being a dictator. He told us there were WMDs. Donald Rumsfeld assured us he knew where they were! I don't believe the American people or Congress would have authorized an invasion of Iraq based on Saddam's treatment of his own people. And that's why Bush lied to us, over and over.

He was not a threat to his neighbors. He did fight a long war with Iran, with the backing of the United States. He was isolated and kept well in check.

A potential world threat? How about Iran, how about North Korea? Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil." Then he attacked the only one without the ability to creat nuclear weapons! Does that tell you anything? It tells me he wasn't trying to protect this country, he wanted Saddam.

You should really read the newspapers. They recently arrested a group in Florida, a home grown terrorist group. So fighting them over there so we don't fight them here won't work. Sensible people have know that for a looong time.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Mike said:
He had to prove nothing to the United States.

THE HELL HE DIDN'T

After the Kuwait fiasco we had an agreement with the IRAQ government stipulating what they COULD and COULD NOT do.

Those stipulations WERE NOT kept by the Iraqi clones. Hell, they even ran the UN weapon inspectorsOUT of IRAQ. :p :p :p

Show me a link that says Saddam had to prove anything to the United States. The UN, yes, but not the US. And the UN did not sanction this attack.

Poor Mike. I'll type slowly so you won't miss it: There were UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq when Bush decided to invade. This invasion had nothing whatsoever to do with WMDs. Spin all you want, but the facts are out there and I'll keep posting them as long as I can.

"In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Dis, would you please, PLEASE quit standing up for Saddam?

In your obsession to tear down President Bush, you are almost
putting Saddam on a pedastal. It's maddening, what you are doing.
You have gone way beyond informing and information. You are sick.

You need to be tried in a court as a traitor to the US.

I've never stood up for Saddam. He's a murder and a tyrant. But that doesn't give George W. Bush the right to lie to the American people, go against the wishes of most of the world, and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. There are many tyrants around the world, yet Bush only chooses to attack Saddam. I think I know why, but I'd be glad to see your explanation.

If you and others who support Bush get their way and take away my right of free speech, I might well be tried. But I don't think that's going to happen. Disagreeing with the majority doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make me a traitor. I can come up with a lot more information to make my position against this war than you can come up with to make your postion for this war. In fact, I don't even see you trying to justify the war anymore. You just defend Bush and slam me.

I'd really be interested in seeing your facts justifying this Iraq War, FS. Lay them out for me, please.
 
Top